Thursday, August 23, 2012

Philip Chain is the earliest known example of a father who
used picketing to attract attention to his plight as a parent who had been
denied access to his child by a malicious mother. It was not until the 1970s
that fathers’ rights groups were formed and started doing group pickets,
usually in front of courthouses. Chain, however, took his signs to his own home
which he was legally barred from. Gender ideologues have for decades claimed fathers
only try to “see” their children (as if “seeing” were enough) in order to
manipulate the “intrinsic victim of patriarchy,” the mother. The true history
of child custody proves otherwise. Despite the fashionable social
constructivist theories that are dogmatically spewed and sold by professors,
claiming that the further back in history we go the less parents (of both
sexes) loved their children, history is on the contrary rich with tales of
fathers who made great sacrifices to try to retrieve children that ex’s, the
courts and other entities. A particularly poignant example is that of John McCray.

***

PHOTO CAPTION (Article 1 of 4):

PLEADS TO SEE CHILD – Policeman talks with Philip Chain, 38,
who is picketing his former wife in Hollywood, Cal., with a sign pleading he be
permitted to see the couple’s child, Darlene, 3.He told police their divorce decree gave him
visiting rights, but the former wife, Esther, refused to let him see Darlene,
saying the girl is sick. Police said the picketing broke no law.

Carrying a placard on which these words were printed, Philip
Chain, 38, of 3200 San Fernando Blvd., Burbank, yesterday walked back and forth
in the 800 block of N. Edinburgh St. His wife lives in the neighborhood.

Chain alleged that his former wife, Esther, 30 refused to
allow him to see the couple’s baby Darlene, 3, telling him the youngster was
ill.

Chain said that he and his wife were married on June 20,
1948, separated last January and that she had obtained an interlocutory decree
in September. He said that he was granted weekly visiting privileges by the
court.

Mrs. Chain could not be reached for a statement.

Police called to the scene tried to discourage Chain from
his picketing but he refused. Officers allowed him to continue, saying he was
breaking no law.

PICKETS FOR PATER RIGHTS— For
the second time since being divorced in 1952, Philip Chain, 38, above, picketed
the Los Angeles home of his former wife, Mrs. Esther Critichfield Chain,
because she was not at home when he came to visit their 4-year-old daughter,
Darlene. According to a court order, Mr. Chain explains, he can visit the child
on Sundays and holidays, but this Sunday when he arrived there was a sign on
the door reading “Not at home,” so he put up the placards and started picketing
the house.

FULL TEXT (Article 4 of 4): Philip Chain, 38, who charges
that his ex-wife will not permit him to see their daughter, Darlene, 4, was
back “picketing” yesterday in front of 853 N. Edinburgh Ave.

He said he came to the house to take the youngster out to
dinner but was greeted by a “Not at Home” sign on the front door. His former
wife, Esther, 31, had taken the child away to a party, he learned.

Her refusal to allow the child to visit her father from 1 to
6 p. m. on Sundays and holidays is a violation of the court order, Chain said,
which granted Mrs. Chain said, an interlocutory degree
in September, 1952, and granted him visiting privileges. [sic: a privilege, not
a right!]

~ Fifth Refusal ~

“This is the fifth time she has refused to let me see my
daughter,” Chain said. “The last time I saw her she said unless I paid $13 a week
support for the girl I couldn’t see Darlene.”

He explained that he is out of work now and has not been
able to pay that amount. He lives with his parents at 2426-A N. Buena Vista
St., Burbank.

Legends on the signs he exhibited and some which he taped to
window screens of the Edinburgh house read:

“Waiting to see my baby”; “Why can’t a father see his
child?” and “I plead for justice.”

The Chains were married on June 20, 1948, and were separated
in January, 1952. He said their divorce was not yet final.

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

This collection has attracted the attention of one of the
most respected bloggers in the politically correct vein of blogging, at Man Breasts (formerly "Man Boobz" (sic), but now re-branded as "We Hunted the Mammoth")

Said blog does not offer an entirely positive assessment of
our efforts, but that is not necessarily such a bad thing. After all, mot of the
factual material collected in the 700+ posts on The Unknown History of MISANDRY is completely unknown to the public
nowadays. I would have preferred that the Sigurd Hoeberth design be featured on
Man Breasts rather than theironic one chosen, but heck, 1926, the
year the first formal Men’s Rights organization was founded, was a very, very
long time ago.

***

***

STOP VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN BY WOMEN

It is time to give up the lie that women are not initiators of
violence.

Monday, August 20, 2012

Ernest Belfort Bax (Jul. 26, 1854 – 26 Nov.
26, 1926) was perhaps the first major important early anti-misandry
writer.

He is known for his contribution to the anonymously
published 1896 book, The Legal
Subjection of Men, (London, Twentieth
Century Press), later reissued with a new introduction by Bax (The original
book is usually incorrectly considered to be authored primarily by Bax) and his
1913 book, The Fraud of Feminism
(London: Grant Richards). The full texts of both books are freely available
online.

BIAS OF TRIBUNALS.
– The settled bias of the tribunals in favour of the woman complainant,
actuating magistrates, judge and jury, operates in two ways. In the first place
a woman has only to complain against a man, and the tribunal is already
convinced of the justice of her claim. The tribunal is only impartial if the
complaint is by one woman against another. In the next place, no adequate
repression of crime or other injury by a woman against a man is even attempted.

[from: Two Barristers (Anonymous authors,
attributed solely, but incorrectly, to E. Belfort Bax, who made minor
contributions), The Legal
Subjection of Men, 1908 (originally published by London, Twentieth Century Press, 1896)]

Reid was jailed on July 27, 1925. Following is the earliest report on
the Reid case so far discovered.

FULL TEXT (Article 1 of 13):
Willows, Sept 22. – Although he has been in jail for two months for refusing to
pay alimony to his former wife, Samuel W. Reid, still insists he will spend the
rest of his life in the bastile before he will carry out the court order.

[Untitled, Hayward Semi-Weekly
Review (Ca.), Sep. 25, 1925, p. 7]

FULL
TEXT (Article 2 of 13):

~ All
for a Principle ~

Sacramento,
Cal. – Entering the third year of his “alimony martyrdom,” [jailed on July 27,
1925] Sam W. Reid, wealthy Glen County rancher, denied he was enjoying his
lone, self-imposed imprisonment for refusal to pay alimony to his divorced
wile. “I have spent three years in jail on behalf of a principle,” Reid
muttered through the bars I am willing to pay $90 a month for upkeep of my
daughter, but I’ll not pay one cent to support my former wife and her husband
if I have to stay in jail the rest of my life.”

Reid’s case inspired the following correspondence in the Elsie Marlow advice column:

FULL TEXT (Article 3 of 13):

HAS A
FATHER A RIGHT TO HIS CHILDREN?

Does
that seem to be a silly question to you?

Then
you should listen in while some of the Divorced Papas of this nation broadcast
their grievances.

According
to them a father stands just about as much chance in the divorce courts of our
various States as a rabbit in the well known tropic regions.

Here's
E. C., for example.

DEAR
ELSIE:

Much
has been written about the case of Samuel Reid, the Alimony Martyr of
California. Reid
is being held a prisoner in one of the jails of that State because of has
refusal to pay alimony to his divorced wife while he is deprived of any voice
in the shaping of his daughter's future.

Reid and his wife were divorced. The custody of the child
was awarded to the mother, Reid was refused
the right to say where or how his daughter was to be reared. He refused to pay
the alimony under such conditions and has been in jail ever since, about two
years.

I
believe the public is pretty much in sympathy with the prisoner and that the
judge’s attitude in this matter is open to criticism.

About
eleven years as I was faced with the same problem in one of our larger cities.
My wife sued me for divorce and pending the trial of the case the judge ordered
me to pay alimony and turn the two young children over to their mother.

I
protested against the associates of the mother and against the environment into
which the children would be thrown if given into their mother keeping. The
judge stated that he would give them to the mother and that if she persisted in
keeping them in objectionable surroundings, he would take them away from her
and put them in a convent.

There
was nothing in the divorce charge that reflected on my character. I loved my
children and was simply able to provide for them. But according to the judge’s
ruling, I was not to be considered at all in any disposition made of the
children except in the footing of the bills.

I
refused to accept such a ruling and removed my children beyond the jurisdiction
of that court, in fact, out of the State. I was than haled before the judge on
the grounds of kidnaping and threatened with jail, but the judge did not have
the nerve to carry out his threat. Was I right or wrong?

I
think the attitude of Mr. Reid’s wife smacks of vengeance and persecution and
thus the judge
should admit an error has been made and give the prisoner his freedom.

E. C.

There’s
the opening wedge for a big argument. Many take the attitude that Mama Can Do
No Wrong, But Papa Can Do Nothing But.

Should
the Mother always receive greater consideration in our courts? Do you believe
that Mother Love is ALWAYS greater than Father Love?

How
about the Mama who sets the little darlings to spy on Papa, when they go see
him once a month?

How
about the divorced Papas and Mamas who carry on a guerilla warfare, using their
children as a medium of exchange?

Don’t
he partial – let’s have both sides of the story. If you think that Mamas are
getting the worst of it, say so right out loud. Or, if you’re for the Papas,
give your reasons.

FULL TEXT (Article 4 of 13): Willows, Cal., Aug. 24. – Sam
Reid, star boarderat the Glenn county jail, and world’s
champion “alimony martyr,”and a
red-haired young man who has had quite a disturbing influence on politicshereabout, is at it again.

Not content with costing county officials
several thousand votes and many sleepless nights, Reid has determined to reopen
his crusade for “freedom with out concession” by appeal to Governor Young.

Linking with his clemency plea a request that
the state made a thorough investigation into the reasons for his martyrdom, the
32-year-old apostle of “equal
rights tor men” will petition the governor for a full pardon.

“Someone is acting loony in this case, and
I’m not the man,” Reid told International News Service today. “A jury of
alienists has adjudged me perfectly sane. I can and I won’t pay. I can be free
and I won’t be free. What’s the reason? Surely it is time the state makes an
investigation before my board bill amounts to the size of the war debt.”

Reid, now entered on the third year of his
self imposed imprisonment, is adamant in his resolution not to contribute to
the support of his child while she is left in the custody of his former wife,
who has re-married. He also stands pat on his original challenge of “Not one
cent for alimony.” But that feature of the celebrated case has been solved by
his ex-wife’s remarriage.

In his letter to Gov. Young the “alimony
martyr” declared he will present a complete review of the famous case, which began
in February. 1925, which Reid was ordered by SuperiorJudge Claude F. Purkitt to pay his former wife for the
maintenance of their child, and refused. He will submit his record as a soldier
overseas and his record at home as a prosperous farmer.He will present
evidence which he claims proves his contention that his former wife should not
be entrusted with the cure of their daughter.

As
further evidence of his good faith, Reid Declared he Mill agree to pay more
than four times the amount for the support of little Zada May Reid required by
the court. But he “will pay it only on the condition that my daughter is placed in a good Christian
home.” Mrs. Anna L. Saylor, newly appointed chief of the State Department of
Social Welfare, will be asked to investigate the case.

Reid today is the biggest political issue in
Glenn county, according to his friends here. One County official went down to
defeat at the polls recently as a result of his imprisonment, they say, and
Judge Plunkett is declared to be facing almost certain defeat at next year’s
election unless “the white elephant in the county jail” is released.

While county officials argue the matter and
seek vainly for a solution, Reid is working for the overthrow of “unjust
alimony laws.” He has joined the Alimony Payers’ Protective Association
[founded after the beginning of Reid’s campaign], a national organization
composed of those who believe that “It is the man who pays and pays,” and is
working through that association to break down the present system.

FULL TEXT (Article 5 of 13): If
Samuel W. Reid, of California, goes down in
history at all, it will be as the first champion of Equal Rights for Men. In
the social Roll of Martyrs he will be emblazoned as the first “Alimony Martyr.”

What thousands of men have
wanted to do, what hundreds have threatened to do, Reid has done. His strike
against what he terms “the viciousness of the American alimony hysteria” is
comparable to famous hunger strikes. He is in jail for his principles along
these lines. He will die in jail, he swears, before he will deviate one inch
from his stand.

“Millions for defense, but one
not one cent for the tribute of alimony” is his clarion slogan, and the
thousands of alimony payers throughout the United States,
who meekly pay what Reid calls “legalized blackmail,” echo those noble
sentiments without, however, joining Reid in his jail strike.

It began back in July 1925, when
Reid was cited for contempt of court. The preceding February his wife had been
granted a divorce.

Alimony had been fixed by
justice C. F. Purkitt of Willows, California
– a respected jurist who had formerly been chairman of the Democratic State
Central Committee. Reid had failed to meet the alimony payments. Judge Purkitt
ordered him sent to jail until he decided to pay up.

No one in California
paid any attention to what appeared to be a routine divorce alimony tangle. No
one thought, in July 1925, that young Samuel W. Reid was to become increasingly
famous as “The Alimony Martyr,” that county officials and the very judge who
committed him would be anxiously awaiting seeking means of getting rid of him,
that two Governors of the State would be appealed to in his strange case – or
that as he persisted in his lone stand even when attempts were made to prove
him insane, this young unknown would receive such a flood of encouraging
letters from all over the nation – and many of them from women – bidding him
keep up courage and continue his one-man filibuster on behalf of altering the
prevailing alimony system.

Reid was in jail six months
before people generally knew he existed. In Willows, he had been a spruce,
quick-witted figure. His face smooth and unlined, his garb clean and his hair
well-trimmed. A prosperous young farmer of 30 years; a war veteran of the 353rd
Infantry, with service in the Argonne and St.
Mihiel to his credit.

When finally, he attracted more
than local interest, he was looking through the bars of county jail, a bit
woe-begone, everything about him changed but his mind. Hair and beard he had
permitted to grow, until he had begun to take on something of a resemblance to
Anton Lang, of Oberramergau’s famous Passion Play.

The court has ordered: “Stay in
jail till you agree to pay alimony.”

Reid had replied: “I refuse to
pay while my child remains in surroundings and environment I consider unfit for
her upbringing. Change that environment. Otherwise, I shall never pay even
though I remain in jail the rest of my life.”

The court meant to be obeyed. In
six months, Reid had acquired a beard of a foot long – but no matter what had
changed in Willows, Reid’s quiet determination continued. He proved no
publicity seeker. He refused even to be photographed. He had taken a stand, and
proposed to see it through.

Interest centered upon the ex-wife in this strange impasse.
It was found that, in 1917, Phoebe Brownell was a schoolgirl in Orland, California. She eloped with
Walter Steuben, who was employed Brownell ranch and, after living with him for
nearly four years, sued him for divorce on grounds of non-support. Grieving
over the suit, Stephen went to the country home near Orland, owned by J. L.
Brownells, parents of his wife, and attempted suicide by shooting himself
through the body. He was cared for by the Brownell family and recovered, but
nevertheless the young bride obtained her divorce.

Three years later, she was
married to Reid at a fashionable wedding in the St. Francis Hotel in San Francisco. They
separated after a year of married life and the birth of Zada May Reid. Each
sued for divorce. The wife won the decree on grounds of extreme cruelty,
claiming her husband was nagging and fault-finding. Included in the decree was
the order to pay for the support of the child. Reid openly admitted he
possessed money to meet such payments, but deemed the custodians of the child
unfit.

For this – he was in jail. And
his ex-wife, who preserved silence regarding him, proceeded to marry her first
husband, Walter Steuben.

After a year and four months
behind bars, Reid has grown contemptuous of the law’s efforts to break his
resolve. He seemed to have sentenced himself to life imprisonment. At 32, he
had the hirsute adornment of a hermit And the pallor of a convict. But his
Spartanlike disdain for punishment remained undiminished. Though a word from
him would have won instant release, he had vowed never to speak that word.

This one-time prosperous young
farmer viewed himself as a martyr to a new cause. Down through the ages, as he
saw it, men had suffered imprisonment and death for liberty of thought, freedom
of religious and other great principles. Reid’s cause had become “freedom from
alimony payment” – if he could not have a voice in deciding who should take the
child.

From July 27, 1925, when he
first went to jail; he felt this martyrdom growing on him. His wife’s
remarriage, and the knowledge that his child was now living with that former
spouse and her former husband, had only strengthened his resolve and heightened
his contempt, until, according to his jailers, his conception of freedom had
become a womanless Utopia – a place where alimony was an unknown problem.

“I shall never pay,” Reid
announced at this time. “It’s not the money; it’s the principle. What if I am
here for life? I’m the first martyr to a great cause.”

But Glenn County
officials had officially grown tired of paying the board and lodging bill of
this increasingly famous “alimony martyr.”
They proceeded to force a grand jury investigation, in the hope that
they might well be rid of this white elephant. Judge Purkitt, who had sentenced
Reid for contempt, asked such an inquiry under legal provisions requiring that
body to look into the condition of prisoners.

“Reid is defying constituted
authority,” Judge Purkitt said, “but there is no excuse for him to remain in
jail longer.”

Judge Purkitt recommended that
Reid purge himself of contempt by paying the alimony and then apply for
modification of the terms of divorce, since the wife had remarried.

To which Reid replied: “I have
the money and I can pay, but I still refuse to do so. My case alone is not at
stake. The whole alimony system is wrong and I propose to do what I can to
right it.”

During his incarceration, Reid
has spent a great deal of his time studying up on the unique subject of
alimony, and has announced his intention of writing a book on the matter some
day.

Alimony is defined as the
“allowance for maintenance to which a wife is entitled out of her husband’s
estate on a decree for judicial separation or for the dissolution of the
marriage.” Though, as a rule, payable to the wife, it may, if the circumstances
of the case warrant be payable to the husband. Such cases, however, are
admittedly so rare that they would be regarded as worth particular comment when
they occur.

Of late years the generous
allotment of alimony by American judges has created a situation which does not
exist in any other country in the world. The charge is made by certain victims
of the alimony laws that there is a class of women who marry with the sole
intention of getting alimony, and there are said to be some women who, under
various names, have been drawing alimony from several husbands. Alimony was a
subject for good-natured jest in the days when divorces were infrequent, but nowadays,
when one out of every seven marriages in the United States is dissolved by
divorce, and where there is an even greater proportion of legal separations
involving alimony payments, the subject is no longer considered a laughing
matter, particularly by the victims.

Reid has received letters from
hundreds of alimony paying husbands, most of whom state it to be their opinion
that they considered alimony a proper institution where there are children, but an unfair and inequitable tax
in the case of childless marriages.

“Blackmail, that’s what it amounts to,” Reid said. “I’m
willing to sacrifice my life if need be to draw attention to the plight of
victims of an iniquitous industry which has the sanction of the courts.”

And while he stays in jail the letters and telegrams of
congratulation and gratitude from other “victims” of the alimony laws continue
to pour in, and the great number of divorced men who are paying alimony are
hoping that the case may result in an investigation of the present laws on the subject.

[“California’s Embarrassing Problem of the First ‘Alimony
Martyr,” The American Weekly, Sunday supplement to The San Antonio Light (Tx.),
Dec. 25, 1927]

***

FULL TEXT (article 6 of 13): Willows, Cal., Jan. 18 – Samuel
W. Reid is a mild-appearing young man, but he is very stubborn.

Which is why he has been in jail here ever since July 27,
1925.

In addition, Reid probably will continue to stay in jail for
some time to come. Yet he could, at any time, get out very easily. If he would
agree to pay alimony to his wife who divorced him more than two years ago he
would be given his freedom at once.

~ Vows He Won’t Pay ~

He won’t. He vows he will stay in jail for the rest of his
life rather than pay his wife one cent.

The other side shows no signs of weakening. Consequently, it
begins to look as if Reid’s stubbornness will get a very long endurance test.

Reid is an intelligent-appearing, quiet young ex-soldier,
who served under fire with the 91st division in France and who is
not at all the kind of man you expect to find in jail.

His troubles began when Mrs. Reid sued for, and won, a
divorce. The court awarded her custody of their child, a girl, gave her $20 a
month alimony and directed Reid to pay an additional $20 a month for the
support of the child.

Reid refused, pointblank, to pay one red cent.

He declared that while he was willing to pay for the support
of his daughter, his ex-wife was not a fit person to take care of her. So long
as Mrs. Reid kept the girl, he said, he would pay nothing; but if Mrs. Reid
would give the girl up he would pay gladly.

Refusing
to pay, he was found in contempt of court and ordered to jail until he paid.

~
Refused to Yield ~

County
authorities were perplexed. Most alimony prisoners soften after a short
confinement and agree to pay anything rather than be held prisoners. But not
Reid. He calmly announced that nothing on earth could make him pay.

The
county authorities felt that Reid must be mentally unsound. They had alienists
examine him. The alienists reported that Reid, though very stubborn, was
perfectly sane.

Meanwhile,
the former Mrs. Reid re-married, taking as her husband the man to whom she had
been married before she married Reid.. This increased Reid’s determination not
to pay; also it caused him to appeal to Governor C. C. Young for a pardon.
Governor Young refused to review his case, however, holding that it was a
matter strictly between Reid and the Glenn county superior court.

Then
Reid asked the court to review the alimony order. The court held, however, that
this could not be done until Reid had first purged himself of contempt; and the
only way he could do that was by paying up – which he would not do. So the
status quo remains undisturbed.

Next
the county grand jury decided to look into Reid’s charge that his ex-wife
should not have custody of the child. It investigated her and her home and she
was an eminently satisfactory person to take care of a little girl. Reid
remained unconvinced, charging that the foreman of the grand jury was a close friend
of Mrs. Reid.

~
Refused to Shave ~

During
the first few months of his imprisonment Reid refused to shave or have his hair
cut, and for a time he presented a strange and shaggy appearance. He soon tired
of that, however, and now keeps as neatly groomed as though he were a rising
young bond salesman.

His
quarters are not regulation jail quarters. He has a room on the second floor
somewhat away from the regular cell block. He has a comfortable bed, a bureau,
a number of pictures on the walls and a set of his own books. He eats his meals
with the rest of the prisoners, mingles with them occasionally in the “bull
pen” and, on the whole, seems notto
mind greatly being held a prisoner.

FULL
TEXT (Article 7 of 13): Willows, Cal., Oct. 26.— October 10 years ago saw the
363rd infantry fighting, plodding, dying through the mud, muck and morasses of
the Argonne and the Ypres-Lys salient.

And
the present October finds the remnants of the 363rd still shoulder to shoulder,
winning objectives — with the regimental treasury suffering the casualties.

The
regiment’s latest victory is winning the four-year “alimony war,” which has
almost divided this county, while the “alimony martyrdom” of Sam W. Reid gained
nation-wide prominence, and brought threats of everything from appeals to the
governor to storming the legislature.

Reid
fought in the 363rd during the World war. After the war, he married. A few
years later, his wife sued for divorce here. She was granted a degree, custody
of their baby daughter, $20 a month alimony and $20 a month for the child’s
support. Reid refused to pay. “As long as the child remains in the keeping of
her maternal grandparents, I’ll not pay a cent,” was Sam’s defi [challenge,
defiance].

“You'll
pay or you'll go to jail until you do pay,” in substance was the ukase of the
court. Reid chose to defy this edict.

And
he was adjudged in contempt of court by Judge Claude F. Purkitt here, and
placed in jail.

That
was in July, 1925. Reid defending his position as he saw it “dug in” at the
jail, prepared for a long stay. The court, equally determined, stood its
ground. The case became widely discussed – and hopelessly deadlocked.

Someone
brought an insanity charge against Reid. A sanity trial found him normal.

For
more than three years he ate and slept as the guest of Glenn county. There
seemed no way of breaking the impasse.

Wartime
buddies of Reid decided that a visit by the “alimony martyr” to the tenth
annual reunion of the old outfit might take his mind off his domestic troubles
and instill in “Alimony Sam” a desire to get back into the world again.

Sheriff
Roy Heard, tall and popular, had became friendly with Reid during the years of
the latter's voluntarily imprisonment. He, too, felt that a new viewpoint was
Sam’s greatest need. And although he knew he laid himself liable to serious
charges, Sheriff Heard took the prisoner to San Francisco to the reunion. Sam
had a wonderful time, he told Heard as they returned to jail.

Then
the Glenn County Bar association formally charged Heard with contempt of court
in taking the prisoner from the county. A date was set for the hearing.

The
363rd felt that it was losing ground in its fight to rehabilitate Reid. It’s
officers summoned an attorney, and rushed here from San Francisco to assist
Heard. For hours, the veterans argued with Reid, attacking, his stubborn fight
for a principle, telling of the sheriff's plight through working in Reid’s
behalf. They pledged the support of the old outfit in getting Sam started again
and in any sort of legal action he might later want to take, for custody of his
child.

And
just before the sheriff was to appear in the overcrowded courtroom on the
contempt charge, attorneys announced that Reid had been purged of the contempt
charge through payment of the disputed alimony by the 363rd infantry
association.

Heard
was declared in contempt of court, arid was fined $250.

The
treasury of the 863rd suffered its second setback of the day as it yielded the
money to pay the fine of the sheriff who braved arrest to go over the top with
the 363rd in breaking an impasse.

And
now, “Alimony Sam” and his three years in jail here, are becoming a memory; the
sheriff is being hailed as a real hero, and the remnants of the 363rd are
proving the truth of its boast that “this gang sticks together.”

FULL TEXT (Article 8 of 13): “Alimony Sam” Reid, who spent three years in the
county jail at Willows rather than pay back alimony which he felt that he did
not owe, breaks into the news again.

This
time it is in connection with the now Twentieth Century market which opens to
Eastbay shoppers on Saturday.

“Alimony
Sam” will manufacture and sell candled popcorn at the new market.

“I was offered $400
it week to go on the vaudeville stage after my release from jail,” Reid
explained, “but I did not think that I should capitalize on that. I stayed in
jail because I felt that I could not meet the order of the court and still
retain my own sense of justice. I decided that I would rather earn my living in
a regular way. Reid has several vocations and avocations. He decided to enter the market “game” because he loved children. Popcorn, especially
candied popcorn, appeals to the youngsters, Reid said. So he capitalized on his
candymaking experience and rented a booth in the new market to cater to the
sweet tooth or youngsters of all ages. He will make his home in Oakland.

“I
like it in Oakland, and I feel this city has a great future.” he said, “so I
decided to stake what I have in this venture. I can’t lose.”

The
Twentieth Century market began running an “Alimony Sam Says” feature – quips
from the folk hero – with their
newspaper ads in this issue of the Oakland Tribune.

FULL TEXT (Article 10 of 13): Orland, April 17 – Zada Reid
Stuben, 6, daughter of Sam Reid, Glenn county’s famous “alimony martyr” and
central figure in his many legal battles to gain release from jail, died last
night at a Woodland hospital, following a two weeks’ illness.

[“Martyr Loses Child,” San Mateo Times (CA.), Apr. 17, 1931,
p. 1]

***

FULL TEXT (Article 11 of 13): Orland – The death of their
daughter, Zada Reid Steuben, six, reunited Sam Reid, famous “alimony martyr”
and his former wife, Mrs. Walter Steuben [Phoebe], here Saturday when Reid
arrived from Plumas county to attend the funeral. Reid was at the grave for
public funeral services for the child.

FULL
TEXT (Article 12 of 13): Sam Reid, famous one-tile “alimony martyr,” Thursday
faced suit brought in Willows by his wife, E. B. (sic) Steuben, of Orland, for
$779.80, alleged due for medical expenses and burial of their child, Zada Reid
Steuben, who died in Woodland, April 16, according to a Valley News Alliance
report.

Mrs. Steuben charges the money was expended at the request
of the defendant and that he “failed, refused and neglected to pay the money.”

Reid, when last heard of here, was a surveyor for the State
Highway Commission at San Luis Opispo.

At the time of the funeral, he said he had not been allowed
access to the Steuben home at Orland to see the child in its coffin, although
he attended the services at the graveside.

Three hundred dollars, left by the girl’s grandmother, Mrs.
Lois Brownell, and which fell to Reid and his former wife at the time of the
child’s death, has been attached as a result of the suit.

NOTE: Lois may have been the child’s great aunt rather than
grandmother. Find-a-grave reports the death of Phoebe’s mother, Laura Z.
Brownell, on Oct. 3, 1947, in Orland. Laura Z. Brownell was born in 1873.

***

FULL TEXT (Article 13 of 13): Willows, Cal. May 28 – Sam Reid,
Glenn county’s “alimony martyr,” today prepared to fight a law suit which he
discovered his former wife had filed against him and on which she would have
obtained a default judgment in one more week.

Thursday, August 16, 2012

Ever
since the 1960s feminist professors, lawyers, journalists and government
bureaucrats have been lying to the public about domestic violence. Among the
armada of fabrications floated by these propagandists is the slanderous claim
that through the 19th century and the first half of the 20th
society was tolerant of domestic violence against wives. The claims are false,
but are still perpetuated by thousands of “experts” and by respected law publishers
to this very day.

This
myth of the social acceptance of domestic violence against women is necessary
to keep alive if the feminist social engineers wish to keep the “rule of thumb”
hoax (the infamous “law” that never was a law) going.

Following
are examples of 19th and early 20th century community
activism showing that in reality men treated wife beaters with the exact
opposite of tolerance. Honest historical researchreveals the facts are the exact opposite of
what the “experts” have been telling us all our lives.

IMAGE:
The headline illustration from Mark Twain’s Huckleberry
Finn shows two of the punishments – riding the rail and tar and feathers –
that in days gone by were conferred by communities upon male perpetrators of
domestic violence against women.

Here are quotations of
phrases which demonstrate how domestic violence was seen by society during the
period in which feminist experts falsely claim that domestic violence against
women was seen as a “private matter,” went unpunished and was considered
socially acceptable. The historical fraud, still widely propagated in an
important part of the foundational rationale for the build-up of the Bill of
Rights-defying, authoritarian and lucrative domestic violence industry.

1853 – “It is a pity that
every vile rascal who beats wife could not served in the same manner.” – Hines

1871 – “He was adjudged
guilty and sentenced to thirty days in the chain-gang, a punishment he richly
merits.” – Swan

1876 – “All right, our
Sheriff is a skillful hand with a buggy whip, we presume he will settle with
all our wife beaters. Pay them off in their own coin; our reporter [Los Angeles
Herald] will be on hand.” – Los Angeles

1876 – “In the California
Legislature, senate introduced a bill to summarily punish wife beaters, to the
effect a battery, if inflicted upon the wife the assailant, shall be punishable
by the infliction of no less than twenty-one lashes on the bare back to be administered
by the Sheriff of the county, under the direction of the court or judge. This
is very good, but capital punishment would better.” – Tucson Arizona newspaper reporter

1886 – “the cowardly
savage”; “If the villain looks to his safety, he will never again return.” –
Gibson

1893 – “It does us good whenever we learn of a wife beater getting
punished.” – Schnell

•►•◄•

At present the “politically correct” social engineers
indoctrinated in collectivist ideology, with the entire arsenal of the
post-Constitutional government of Washington, D.C. and the leadership of the
multi-national corporations, which treat people as mere “human resources,” have
the power, yet: